Olivarez v. Warden, S.C.P. Three Rivers

S.D. Texas

Olivarez v. Warden, S.C.P. Three Rivers

District Court, S.D. Texas·Decided August 11, 2025·No. 2:25-cv-00077·Unknown

Opinion

Southern District of Texas UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT ENTERED SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS August 11, 2025 CORPUS CHRISTI DIVISION Nathan Ochsner, Clerk ERNEST OLIVAREZ, § § Petitioner, § § V. § CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:25-CV-00077 § WARDEN, S.C.P. THREE RIVERS, § § Respondent. § ORDER ADOPTING MEMORANDUM AND RECOMMENDATION Before the Court is Magistrate Judge Mitchel Neurock’s Memorandum and Recommendation (M&R). (D.E. 14). The M&R recommends that the Court dismiss this action without prejudice as moot and deny Respondent’s motion for summary judgment as moot. /d. at 4. The parties were provided proper notice of, and the opportunity to object to, the Magistrate Judge’s M&R.!' See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); FED. R. Civ. P. 72(b); General Order No. 2002-13. No objection has been filed. When no timely objection has been filed, the district court need only determine whether the Magistrate Judge’s M&R is clearly erroneous or contrary to law. United States v. Wilson, 864 F.2d 1219, 1221 (Sth Cir. 1989) (per curiam); Powell v. Litton Loan Servicing, L.P., No. 4:14-CV-02700, 2015 WL 3823141, at *1 (S.D. Tex. June 18, 2015) (Harmon, J.) (citation omitted). Having carefully reviewed the proposed findings and conclusions of the Magistrate Judge, the filings of the parties, the record, and the applicable law, and finding that the M&R is not clearly erroneous or contrary to law, the Court ADOPTS the M&R in its entirety. (D.E. 14). Accordingly,

' Petitioner’s mail was returned as undeliverable. (D.E. 17). As a party, Petitioner is required to keep the Court apprised of his current address at all times and has failed to do so. LOCAL RULE 83.4; see also Martinez-Reyes v. United States, No. 7:12-CR-1787-1, 2016 WL 8740494, at *4 (S.D. Tex. Oct. 10, 2016) (Ormsby, Mag. J.) (collecting cases), adopted, No. CR M-12-1787-1, 2017 WL 1409315 (S.D. Tex. Apr. 20, 2017) (Crane, J.).

Petitioner’s Section 2241 habeas action is DISMISSED without prejudice as moot, (D.E. 1), and Respondent’s motion for summary judgment is DENIED as moot, (D.E. 13). A final judgment will issue separately. SO ORDERED. CU DA S. MORALES UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Signed: Corpus Christi, Texas August MES 2025

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Southern District of Texas UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT ENTERED SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS August 11, 2025 CORPUS CHRISTI DIVISION Nathan Ochsner, Clerk ERNEST OLIVAREZ, § § Petitioner, § § V. § CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:25-CV-00077 § WARDEN, S.C.P. THREE RIVERS, § § Respondent. § ORDER ADOPTING MEMORANDUM AND RECOMMENDATION Before the Court is Magistrate Judge Mitchel Neurock’s Memorandum and Recommendation (M&R). (D.E. 14). The M&R recommends that the Court dismiss this action without prejudice as moot and deny Respondent’s motion for summary judgment as moot. /d. at 4. The parties were provided proper notice of, and the opportunity to object to, the Magistrate Judge’s M&R.!' See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); FED. R. Civ. P. 72(b); General Order No. 2002-13. No objection has been filed. When no timely objection has been filed, the district court need only determine whether the Magistrate Judge’s M&R is clearly erroneous or contrary to law. United States v. Wilson, 864 F.2d 1219, 1221 (Sth Cir. 1989) (per curiam); Powell v. Litton Loan Servicing, L.P., No. 4:14-CV-02700, 2015 WL 3823141, at *1 (S.D. Tex. June 18, 2015) (Harmon, J.) (citation omitted). Having carefully reviewed the proposed findings and conclusions of the Magistrate Judge, the filings of the parties, the record, and the applicable law, and finding that the M&R is not clearly erroneous or contrary to law, the Court ADOPTS the M&R in its entirety. (D.E. 14). Accordingly,

' Petitioner’s mail was returned as undeliverable. (D.E. 17). As a party, Petitioner is required to keep the Court apprised of his current address at all times and has failed to do so. LOCAL RULE 83.4; see also Martinez-Reyes v. United States, No. 7:12-CR-1787-1, 2016 WL 8740494, at *4 (S.D. Tex. Oct. 10, 2016) (Ormsby, Mag. J.) (collecting cases), adopted, No. CR M-12-1787-1, 2017 WL 1409315 (S.D. Tex. Apr. 20, 2017) (Crane, J.).

Petitioner’s Section 2241 habeas action is DISMISSED without prejudice as moot, (D.E. 1), and Respondent’s motion for summary judgment is DENIED as moot, (D.E. 13). A final judgment will issue separately. SO ORDERED. CU DA S. MORALES UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Signed: Corpus Christi, Texas August MES 2025

Olivarez v. Warden, S.C.P. Three Rivers, (S.D. Tex. 2025).

Pincite

Olivarez v. Warden, S.C.P. Three Rivers (Olivarez v. Warden, S.C.P. Three Rivers) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related